Cap 1 (revised) - Races

[irdeggman]

From all of the discussion on the revision to Chapt 1 I have noticed very little talk about changing the races as presented. Most of the suggestions have been along the lines of making the races "more powerful" akin to the paragon racial classes of UA. That is making them more powerful than they were in 2nd ed. I haven't really seen anyone say that they thought the revised races section presented the races in an unbalanced method or in a way that didn't capture the 'feel and flavor' of 2nd ed Birthright.

Am I missing or misunderstanding something here or am I about right on in my assessment of the feedback?

[Athos69]

I for one have no problem with the races as written.

[RaspK_FOG]

I for one tried to see other people's take on the subject and regretfully saw what you mentioned being part of the truth... And truth be told, I do not have a problem with paragon classes, it's just that I do not like the idea as much as others. In any case, I also realise there is a small part which wants more powerful elves per se; however, they are rather few. I think that people here should try to start and raise their voices a little more: "Shouts of people, wrath of God!" as we say in my country.

[Benjamin]

I thought the races were just fine. No need to load them up on hormones to look like Arnold.

[Osprey]

I for one am a fan of more powerful elves, but I can do that with levels if I want to, though I think it would be cool to have some racial levels for them.

I think the human races are perhaps the oddest bag, as they're now drastically different from their 2nd ed origins. Without a lot of playtesting, it's hard for me to say if they're good or not.

I do miss the special little bonuses the humans got in the BRCS: Anuireans with +1 Will and a few +1 skill bonuses...I don't mind trading the skill bonuses for the regional class skills, but I wouldn't mind seeing each race retain that one general tag like +1 to a save...Vos and Rjurik +1 Fortitude, Anuireans and Khinasi +1 Will, and Brecht +1 Reflex. A slight edge with a lot of cultural symbolism that is kinda neat IMO.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Concerning one thing that people had brought up about the human bonus skills and applying them to the regional skills - this was supposed to be only the 4 bonus skill points humans get at character creation not the extra skill point at subsequent levels, although the skills are always considered class skills.

[Ming I]

It's hard for me, but I'm going to try and relate my comments only to the material in Chapter 1. (Wish me luck! :P)

If it is not readily apparent why a race is receiving a racial ability modifier, the modifiers should be removed and/or replaced with a better fit.

Ex. Dwarves receive +2 Con, -2 Dex. Although Dwarves in the PHB receive a penalty to Cha instead of Dex, the change makes sense since Cerilian dwarves have incredibly dense bodies. If doing a straight conversion, Anuireans should receive +2 Wis, -2 Dex, which doesn't fit with what I know about them. Changing that to +2 Cha would be more fitting (don't ask me to explain the -2 Dex, that just seems wrong on too many levels).

I agree with Osprey, both about the human racial ability modifiers and their other little bonuses.
Dwarves should have 90 foot darkvision (because they had 90 foot infravision in 2nd ed.)
The Infamous Reputation of Elves and Half-Elves isn't necessary. The effect is much easier to do with the "Influencing NPC attitudes" table from the DMG.
Halflings should receive the Shadow Jump ability (similar to the Shadow Dancer) in addition to their Shadow Sense ability.

I'll post more if anything comes up. :)

[irdeggman]

MING I - IMO the reason that Anuireans got a + to wisdom in 2nd ed was to reflect their ability to rule well. Wisdom is most often associated with good rulership (e.g., Soloman the wise) while charisma is just to get people to follow you and do what you want, not really the same as being a wise ruler. That is Anuireans were effective rulers. Why they had a - to Dex, I'm not exactly certain except it was to balance the other modifier and since they were noble, capable warriors, good rulers, and had the most widespread diversity in temples of any of the human races that just about leaves only Dex as the ability that could be penalized. Str and Con being primary attributes for knightly warriors, intelligence and wisdom primary for understanding and focusing faith (e.g., temples) and charisma is good when leading troops in a battle - not necessarily in managing a domain though.

That is my take on why Anuireans had the modifiers they did.

[kgauck]

I agree with irdeggman on why the Anuireans got the Wis bonus. I`ll also

add that Wisdom granted a magical defence bonus at high scores, benefits

against spells that effect the mind. This is an invaluable bonus for the

ruler who might otherwise be magically commanded by enemies or unscrupulous

advisors. Anuirean rulers were not just wise, as irdeggman points out, they

were also more resistant to being swayed from their duties by magical

effects.



Dex and Wis were often regarded as inverse attributes, not unlike Str and

Int. I think this tended to reflect min-max approaches to character design

rather than anything more elevated. Its also worth noting, that as the

nation most heavily armored, they would be least in need of a Dex bonus,

unlike the lightly armored Brecht.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[accasey]

Firstly I liked Ospreys (I think) comment on retaining a bonus to save, or something similar. When BRCS was first introduced I didnt like the idea of ditching the bonus to ability scores. But the other bonus' kind of grew on me...

Cerilian Humans

Shouldn't the line "Humans are the most populace race.." read "Humans are the most populous race..."??

I also wouldn't bother stating that the bonus feat works differently for non-elite and elite characters... When I design adverseries for the PC's I would create them with the same advantages the PC's have. I'm not too fussed on this point as I would just ignore it, or consider some NPC's elite anyway...

Why would Anuireans not have the Ride skill but the Khinasi do? Given that there would be a lot of Knights and other forms of Cavalry in Anuire wouldn't it make sense for them to have it as a background skill as well.

Perhaps the Vos and Rjurik could also have Endurance as a background skill?

Dwarves

It sounds as if the Dwarves predominantly live underground? Did they ever live above ground? If not why would there bonus apply to Orogs and Ogres?

Elves

The bonus against Disease for elves says that they are immune to non-supernatural disease. The write-up for Half Elves just says they get a +2 bonus against disease and aging attacks. Should Elves not get the same +2 bonus against Su disease attacks? Or should the write-up for Half Elves say that the bonus doesn't work for Su attacks (the same as for a full blooded elf)?




Otherwise I like the races and congrats on the efforts in putting this out for review. It's not easy writing doco... :)

[Osprey]

Why would Anuireans not have the Ride skill but the Khinasi do? Given that there would be a lot of Knights and other forms of Cavalry in Anuire wouldn't it make sense for them to have it as a background skill as well.


For me, that one's easy to answer: not all Anuireans are good horsemen...the nobility and professional soldiery tend to have a monopoly on riding, making it a rather exclusive minority skill. The Khinasi, on the other hand, have whole tribes of desert horsemen - that is more of a widespread cultural trait, IMO. All of the noble-and warrior-type classes of Anuire (Noble, Aristocrat, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger) have Ride as a class skill, so I think it's OK if it's not a racial bonus skill.

As for Ability Scores for the humans...I think giving +2 or -2 to ability scores is too strong of a modifier for racial sub-types of humans; that's why I suggested the small save bonuses instead. Personally, I was never crazy about the 2e ability modifiers, and given the current skill system I like them even less. It makes a very strong racial statement, saying "Anuireans are good at ruling, but kind of clumsy."

Does anyone remember any tendency for Anuireans to be clumsy in the actual setting descriptions? I never got that impression. I think the game-balancing mechanics of "you need a minus for every plus" makes such modifiers undesirable. I like playing humans as fairly neutral ability-wise, with their real strengths being their adaptability and resourcefulness. In fact, the human revision was one of my favorite selling points of 3e D&D. I'd prefer to see humans be fairly close to the PHB, with a few tweaks to make them slightly varied from one culture to the next. I think the BRCS was on the right track, and we should keep running with that.

Osprey

[accasey]

Hmm I don't really recall the Khinasi being nomadic horsemen.... Certainly one or two realms might be like that.. I just don't see it as something the Khinasi should have that Anuireans don't. Be we can agree to disagree.

+2/-2 is definitely too much for humans, I agree with your comments on how they should now be. When referring to 2e I guess I liked the idea more that the Cerilian Humans were different, not necessarily the +1 Wisdom etc...

[RaspK_FOG]

So, it seems that, apart from a little cleaning up in the "demihuman" section of races, what most people really want to see changed is the racial traits for humans.

I would like to remind here something in regard to the whole issue: granting both a small list of racial skills with bonuses at them and a saving throw bonus may count as a level adjustment. Now, if humans received a wide list of favoured classes per subrace (Anuirean - cleric, fighter, noble, paladin, etc.; you get the picture), out of which he makes his choice of a favoured class as soon as he gains a level in any of these classes, now that would be both balancing and in order, as there were many people who disliked humans having their highest class as their favoured one, while others refused to go back to the point of giving only one of many possible classes as each subrace's favoured one; this allows for flexibility but drops one of the greatest bonuses humans have, the ability to simply stop advancing in a class to escape XP penalties, down a few notches, but not to the point that most demihumans are.

[Osprey]

I would like to remind here something in regard to the whole issue: granting both a small list of racial skills with bonuses at them and a saving throw bonus may count as a level adjustment. Now, if humans received a wide list of favoured classes per subrace (Anuirean - cleric, fighter, noble, paladin, etc.; you get the picture), out of which he makes his choice of a favoured class as soon as he gains a level in any of these classes, now that would be both balancing and in order, as there were many people who disliked humans having their highest class as their favoured one, while others refused to go back to the point of giving only one of many possible classes as each subrace's favoured one; this allows for flexibility but drops one of the greatest bonuses humans have, the ability to simply stop advancing in a class to escape XP penalties, down a few notches, but not to the point that most demihumans are.

If we're only talking about adding a +1 save bonus to one save to the humans as they are now, do you really think that merits a full level adjustment? I agree that humans as a race might be slightly more powerful than the other demihuman races, but not a lot: dwarves have gained DR vs. bludgeoning weapons; elves seem slightly stronger than their PHB counterparts, with their nature-affinity abilities added in to most of the other PHB abilities; halflings can have their Shadow World abilities in addition to every normal PHB advantage.

My point is that every PC race is slightly "powered-up" compared to the PHB...and honestly I don't see a problem with this, as it is balanced within the setting. But if we then accept that there is a slightly higher than normal standard for what can be +0 ECL, then we can allow humans to be just a tad better than the PHB versions, too. They're not way better, after all...just a few small 'extras.'

[First Horseman]

I would also have to agree for a d20 3third edition or (3.5) Birthright, giving humans more bonuses would just be nuts. I liked the fact that the Cerilian humans got thier penaties and bonuses for thier ablity scores in the second edition Brithright. But for 3ed or(3.5) it would pretty much upset the balance. Beside, a fair portion of the PCs will be nobles and blooded, will have thier bonus feat at first level, and thier bonus skill points (if they are playing humans).

However I don't understand why Paladins of Cuiraecen can CHAOTIC GOOD of alignment and still be able to take the class when their is a code of conduct that a LAWFUL GOOD Paladin must follow such as; obeying the laws of one's domain, not lying cheating and ect. Not to mention who they associates with. Is there going to be a revision with the code for the Paladins of Cuiraecen, as well as some other the spells they can be cast?

Thanks.

[First Horseman]

I would also have to agree for a d20 3third edition or (3.5) Birthright, giving humans more bonuses would just be nuts. I liked the fact that the Cerilian humans got thier penaties and bonuses for thier ablity scores in the second edition Brithright. But for 3ed or(3.5) it would pretty much upset the balance. Beside, a fair portion of the PCs will be nobles and blooded, will have thier bonus feat at first level, and thier bonus skill points (if they are playing humans).

Thanks.

[tcharazazel]

They are chaotic good for the same reason palis of Neserie are neutral good. Its their god's alignment and palis are the embodiment of their gods, in theory. Though unless there is a Pali or Clerical landed regent of the respective god, do you honestly believe that the Pali would put what the landed regent says before what the temple says?

In addition, they are all still good, so why is having a rule that not to lie seem like its Lawful good? heh, I don't lie, though I rarely tell the whole truth. So, a little rule like not lying is not so big a deal, as people can be good, neutral or evil and not lie really.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@Apr 15 2004, 04:08 PM
They are chaotic good for the same reason palis of Neserie are neutral good. Its their god's alignment and palis are the embodiment of their gods, in theory. Though unless there is a Pali or Clerical landed regent of the respective god, do you honestly believe that the Pali would put what the landed regent says before what the temple says?

Actually paladins of Nesire are/were lawful good The only paladin with a different alignment in 2nd ed BR was Cuircean's.

[tcharazazel]

Ah yeah, 2nd ed they were all Lawful except those of Cuircean, though the change in the BCRS makes more sense really to keep the palis the same allignment as their god.

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, I don't know; I just feel that adding both the save bonus and a more restrictive list for a favoured class instead of the standard human trait is better, that's all...

In any case, I find having CG paladins of a CG deity and NG paladins of a NG deity better than having LG paladins for NG and CG deities...

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "tcharazazel" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 4:08 PM





> Though unless there is a Pali or Clerical landed regent of the

> respective god, do you honestly believe that the Pali would

> put what the landed regent says before what the temple says?



Most certainly. There is no reason to suppose that a ruler is the one voice

of a diety. If every cleric and paladin followed the top regent exclusivly,

how did the temples ever fracture in the first place? Rather, its much more

likely that where ever a group of clerics gather, some disagreements will

occur. Under the conditions of rival interpretations of scripture, ritual,

or practice, the paladin will probabaly follow 1) his sworn leader, 2) the

leader which approximates the paladin`s own understanding of the issue, or

3) the leader who is most respected by the paladin for other reasons. If

everone followed the same leader, not only would historical schisms be

difficult to explain, but the Great Captain/Heresy event would be as well.

Finally, if we were to look to the real world, we would find that religous

organizations are full of rival interpretations of key doctrines.



> In addition, they are all still good, so why is having a rule that not

> to lie seem like its Lawful good? heh, I don`t lie, though I rarely

> tell the whole truth. So, a little rule like not lying is not so big a

> deal, as people can be good, neutral or evil and not lie really.



Honesty is an issue on the law-chaos axis, not the good-evil axis. It

involves the harms caused by deception, and the opposition created between

the one who knows the truth, but denies it to his fellows. The obligation

to speak honestly, even though it may be disadvantageous is a mark of the

lawful character.



The code of a CG paladin of Cuiraecen is going to have much more to do with

the mandate to be like a storm, furious, unpredictable, and mighty; to be

ready and eager for battle; and to otherwise put caution and consideration

aside for justice. As for honesty, I would expect that most paladins of

Cuiraecen are honest with regards to authorities, especially those of

Haelyn, Cuiraecen, or Nesirie. This befits Cuiraecen`s role as Herald.

Just how far the Herald`s mandate for honesty extends into the normal

communications of Cuiraecen`s paladins will vary by DM.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@Apr 15 2004, 04:55 PM
Ah yeah, 2nd ed they were all Lawful except those of Cuircean, though the change in the BCRS makes more sense really to keep the palis the same allignment as their god.
What change is that? I don&#39;t recall any change to that effect, unless you meant that there should be one. The only paladin with a non LG alignment in the revised Chapt 1 is Cuircean.

[irdeggman]

I agree quite a lot with Kenneth&#39;s approach to paladins of Cuircaen.

Whenever I get the separate class versions together one of the changes for them is that Diplomacy will not be a class skill for paladins of Cuircean. They are prone to action instead of negotiation. Seeking to understand and work out differences in a peaceful manner being a more standard PHB paladin&#39;s values than those of the storm lord.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Apr 15 2004, 05:36 PM

In any case, I find having CG paladins of a CG deity and NG paladins of a NG deity better than having LG paladins for NG and CG deities...
I don&#39;t know about this. Is there a difference between having LG paladin of a LN god (Avani) or a NG one (Nesirie) when their clerics (in BR) only have to have one alignment aspect in common and not be within a step of their deity (like the PHB clerics are)?

The lawful nature of these paladins helps keep them true to their ideals and word. Whereas they aren&#39;t prone to the brash behaviour of Cuircean&#39;s paladins. Avani and Nesirie&#39;s paladins are still within the negotiator arena, like Haelyn&#39;s are (although not as much, perhaps Nesirie&#39;s might be though).

[tcharazazel]

Its really what your concept of a pali is then, that dictates what you believe their allignment should be. I&#39;ve always seen palis as embodying their gods beliefs and ideals ect. Thus, to follow their gods footsteps it makes sense that they are the same allignment as their god. Of course the PHB says that palis have to be lawful good, and that they dont have to follow any particular diety (pg 41). However, in the BR world palis have to be devote followers of a particular god. (Of course you can always make palis of different gods as house rules that you see fit, or blackguards for Azri even, heh thats a different matter tho really.)

Hmm, if being lawful is the only way to determine how well a devote follower of a diety follows the values of a diety... then would a Lawful Good Pali of Azri make sense? heh, of course not because he would not be devotely following the values of the Azri. So what makes you believe that a Lawful good Pali following a god with Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral allignment be really following the values of the god? True they would be following the doctrine strictly most likely tho, is that what really makes a devote follower follow the values of the god, or is there something more to being devote? Heh, obviously, having faith in the god is what would make the difference, and having faith that the pali follows the will of the god as its messenger, protector of the faithful, becoming the embodyment of the palis diety... ect.

Heh, to be more exact, is a follower of a god more faithful when they are of a different allignment? You could argue that they are just 1 step removed from their gods allignment, however, even in that step from neutral good to lawful good for example, wont there be occasional conflict between what the deity says and values compared to what the pali values? So, if the values of the pali are supposed to be the same as the gods... would it make sense for the palis to have a different allignment as the god?

As for clerics, well they generally are dealing with people and politics more often than palis traditionally would be, so allowing them to be 1 step removed from the gods allignment makes sense, as they their calling to the god could be for differeing reasons, ie power to true faith, while the pali&#39;s calling is a true desire to embody the gods values.

Heh, so how do you really view what a pali is? just a blind follower with a militant preference, or a devote follower who wishes to follow the god&#39;s values and embody them? Or maybe a different view?

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 6:07 PM





> Whenever I get the separate class versions together

> one of the changes for them is that Diplomacy will not

> be a class skill for paladins of Cuircean. They are

> prone to action instead of negotiation. Seeking to

> understand and work out differences in a peaceful

> manner being a more standard PHB paladin`s values

> than those of the storm lord.



As someone who prefers to break up PHB diplomacy into Oration, Bargain, and

Diplomacy, I would say that paladins of Cuiraecen have Oration as their

communication skill. Not only is it suitable for heralds, who are nuncios

not legates, but its useful on the battlefield for that stirring oration

before the fighting starts.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

Kenneth I agree with your logic on oration and heraldry. The &#39;problem&#39; is that neither bargain nor oration are 3.5 PHB skills. I was thinking of knowledge (nobility and royalty) but it seemed kind of far fetched since it deals more with diplomatic (i.e., court style) issues and that is just not really Cuircean&#39;s area of concern, IMO.

[Green Knight]

Are you sure about that? I thought it went like this:

Haelyn = LG
Avani = LN
Nesirie = NG + female
Curre = CG

Cheers B

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by irdeggman+Apr 16 2004, 12:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman @ Apr 16 2004, 12:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-tcharazazel@Apr 15 2004, 04:55 PM
Ah yeah, 2nd ed they were all Lawful except those of Cuircean, though the change in the BCRS makes more sense really to keep the palis the same allignment as their god.
What change is that? I don&#39;t recall any change to that effect, unless you meant that there should be one. The only paladin with a non LG alignment in the revised Chapt 1 is Cuircean. [/b][/quote]
Cuiraécen&#39;s paladins were always CG and that&#39;s good as it is...

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by The Green Knight@Apr 16 2004, 02:20 AM
Are you sure about that? I thought it went like this:

Haelyn = LG
Avani = LN
Nesirie = NG + female
Curre = CG

Cheers B
Per the Book of Priestcraft (and the BRRB) and consistent with the present BRCS:

Haelyn, Avani and Nesirie (also had to be female)- LG

Cuircaen - CG

[Osprey]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Apr 15 2004, 06:36 PM
Well, I don&#39;t know; I just feel that adding both the save bonus and a more restrictive list for a favoured class instead of the standard human trait is better, that&#39;s all...

In any case, I find having CG paladins of a CG deity and NG paladins of a NG deity better than having LG paladins for NG and CG deities...
I simply would rather have DM&#39;s limit the classes than the rulebook... so I guess I don&#39;t care whether or not humans are a bit stronger than their PHB counterparts - because I don&#39;t need a 5th level Fighter from Greyhawk to stumble into Cerilia and be a carbon copy of a 5th level Cerilian fighter, be it from Anuire or Khinasi or Vosgaard.

As for paladins...I completely agree about alignment. I&#39;ve already assumed that paladins always have a strict alignment restriction = their deity&#39;s alignment. It&#39;s what makes sense: they are the physical, martial embodiements of their god.

I&#39;ve always assumed that every sect of paladins have their own code of ethics/morals/rules that are specific to both their general faith and the particular temple they belong to. So the way I see it, there should be a core set of tenats that hold for say, every Paladin of Neserie. But then there might be some variations for the sister paladins of the Eastern Temple Neserie.

Osprey

[Osprey]

Kenneth I agree with your logic on oration and heraldry. The &#39;problem&#39; is that neither bargain nor oration are 3.5 PHB skills. I was thinking of knowledge (nobility and royalty) but it seemed kind of far fetched since it deals more with diplomatic (i.e., court style) issues and that is just not really Cuircean&#39;s area of concern, IMO.

Actually, 3.5 does make Perform (Oratory) a distinct category of the Perform skill. That might work OK for Paladins of Cuiraecen.

HOWEVER...Lead I believe is the BR skill that really applies best to what such a paladin does: he rallies troops, inspires angry mobs against witches, and generally relies on his charisma and emotio, not so much the studied eloquence that is reflected by the Perform skill. That, at least, typifies my interpretation. However, as Kenneth pointed out, the role of Herald is a whole other aspect that does point to a much more refined element of the paladins of Cuiraecen, one which might certainly encourage the skills of Diplomacy, Perform (Oratory), and K/Nobility.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Apr 16 2004, 11:09 AM
As for paladins...I completely agree about alignment. I&#39;ve already assumed that paladins always have a strict alignment restriction = their deity&#39;s alignment. It&#39;s what makes sense: they are the physical, martial embodiements of their god.

And this is pretty much the definition of house-rules. ;)

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, regarding different write-ups for paladins, I suggest that Cuiraecen drops Diplomacy and chooses from either Intimidate or Perform (oratory). Since paladins already have Lead as a class skill, it would be unfair and unjustified to leave it as it is, not to mention that Intimidate somehow suits Cuiraecen&#39;s paladins, doesn&#39;t it?

[irdeggman]

Just some history as to how the revised Chapt 1 demihumans came up with the regional skill pattern. Many people suggested using Wheel of Time as the model for cultural/background skills. This was pretty much the method used only the BRCS had more flexability. For example in Wheel of Time each demihuman had to take their first level feat from the background feat list, they also chose one background skill and got 4 ranks in it (i.e., used up the 4 bonus skill points for humans at first level) and then the background skills were always considered class skills.

So instead of only taking one skill and gaining 4 ranks the BRCS had demihumans apply their 4 bonus skill points to their background skills (i.e., cultural skil list) and then those are always considered class skills. It also made a distinction between elite characters (PCs) and non-elite ones (generic NPCs) by having the non-elite ones use their starting feat on one from the cultural list.

By requiring the starting skill points to be spent on a list of cultural skills and then making them all class skills this was seen as a balancer. A net +0 if you will.


I hope that helps to put things in perspective from how it evolved to twhere it is.


Adding a +1 to a save for each demihuman is not an all out imbalancer, what it equates to is a 1/2 feat, since the +2 to a save is a feat. So it isn&#39;t really all that much of a bonus. It can be easily added without making things imbalanced if that is what people really want.

I may put this up to a poll just to quantify opinions.

[kgauck]

Osprey wrote:

> As for paladins...I completely agree about alignment.

> I`ve already assumed that paladins always have a strict

> alignment restriction = their deity`s alignment. It`s what

> makes sense: they are the physical, martial embodiements

> of their god.



irdeggman replied:

> And this is pretty much the definition of house-rules. ;)



And like many house rules, often make more sense than the offiicial rules.



I have not seen a defence of the choice to make all paladins LG (with the

exception of Cuiraecen). I have seen a reminder that 2e did it that way,

but 3x doesn`t, so why the hold over?



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[tcharazazel]

Heh, yeah my arguement seems like it was a little over the top then for why palis in the BR world should have the same allignment as their diety.

1) In BR only a few palis are allowed in the world, and those must follow a diety, unlike the rules for regular D&D palis, who only need to follow a righteous cause.

2) Considering the above fact, doesnt it make more sense that those palis who embody a diety have the same allignement as their diety, than a different one?

3) I&#39;d have to say: Yes, because following the same values as the diety follows is what being the embodyment of a diety is all about.

4) Heheh, yeah sometimes the house rules make a lot more sense than the offical rules... especially when the ideas behind them seem to follow the idea behind the offical rules... namely the BR world only allows palis who devote themselves to a diety from the start of becomin palis.

not many points really, cause the idea is simple and logical.

[geeman]

At 09:04 AM 4/16/2004 +0200, Green Knight wrote:



>Are you sure about that? I thought it went like this:

>

>Haelyn = LG

>Avani = LN

>Nesirie = NG + female

>Curre = CG



As irdeggman noted only paladins of Cuirecaen were not LG in the original

materials. There is, however, a write-up of a LN paladin of Avani named

Kalilah bint Daouda (RoE 77.) An error? Maybe. Given that Avani`s

alignment herself, however, is LN it seems more likely that paladins

dedicated to her would be LN as well, and Nesirie`s paladins would likely

be NG too.



Personally, I`m more inclined to opening up the alignment restrictions of

paladins since its more in keeping with the themes of the gods and how they

interact with the BR setting--and the alignment restrictions in the core

books are kind of pointless if one gives it a little consideration. It

seems likely that one could have a LG, LN or even LE paladin dedicated to

Haelyn, for instance, or that paladins of Cuirecaen might be CN. The

class` special abilities can be easily adjusting for the appropriate alignment.



We should also have paladins of Ruornil in an update since they are so

prominently mentioned in the PSoMedoere, they fit into that god`s

description at least as well as dwarven paladins do, and there are so many

knights already dedicated to him.



Oh, and paladin should be a prestige class....



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Apr 16 2004, 08:40 PM
We should also have paladins of Ruornil in an update since they are so

prominently mentioned in the PSoMedoere, they fit into that god`s

description at least as well as dwarven paladins do, and there are so many

knights already dedicated to him.
Gary


Actually there is only a single paragraph mentioning a paladin of Rournil in the PS of Medoere and that has to do with the gifting of the Sword of Enlien which functions as a holy avenger in the hands of a paladin of Rournil. And this was supposed to be a unique individual (re - a single person and not a class).

So I would hardly say it is predominantly mentioned.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by kgauck@Apr 16 2004, 07:20 PM
I have not seen a defence of the choice to make all paladins LG (with the

exception of Cuiraecen). I have seen a reminder that 2e did it that way,

but 3x doesn`t, so why the hold over?



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com


Actually in 3rd ed paladins had to be LG. In the 3.5 core rules the same applied, it wasn&#39;t until UA made a proposed variant to have paladins of different alignments (including evil) that they were mentioned otherwise in core WotC books.

The bottom line is whose house rules do we include and whose do we not? (sarcasm intended).

The point was to make the BRCS a base line set of rules that people could use as a basis to make their own house rules (like paladins with different alignments). The goal was to stick as close to the core 2nd ed BR material as possible and still maintain the balance of 3.5.

Some people are going to want to use different alignments for paladins and even include paladins of gods that didn&#39;t have them in 2nd ed. But if we put this into the BRCS then it makes it the base line rule instead of leaving it up to DMs to make their own house rules and using the 2nd ed core as the baseline.

[irdeggman]

From the Book of Exhalted Deeds pg 12:

“Lawful Good characters possess a sense of discipline, honor, and community that other good characters do not necessarily share. Lawful good characters are members of monastic or knightly orders, church hierarchies, or organizations devoted to righteous causes. They believe that morality can be legislated, and promote the establishment of just societies whose laws and customs inculcate good behavior.”

“Chaotic Good characters are strong-willed individualists who tolerate no oppression, even in the name of the common good. They usually work alone or in loose bands, rather than as part of some organization or hierarchy.”

“Neutral Good characters occupy an indistinct middle ground. They espouse the ideals of good and non other.”


The definition of CG really fits the description of Cuircean&#39;s paladins from 2nd ed. While the LG approach comes real close to Haely, Avani and even Nesirie&#39;s paladins. They all had sects and orders of knights with a strong sense of discipline and honor.

[kgauck]

I`ve had paladin`s of Ruornil since `98 or so. They`ve been discussed on

the list at some length ever since the PS of Medoere. Certainaly there

should be some inquiry as to how common such a class concept is, and whether

or not the concept consistant among those who use it (or accept it). My own

notion of the character is that he hunts undead and other shadow world

manifestations.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 9:02 PM





> The bottom line is whose house rules do we include and whose do we not?

(sarcasm intended).



I think the rather obvious answer which the BRCS teams seems totally

oblivious too is "the house rules which a large majority have applied." If

everyone is doing it excepr the CS, then the CS isn`t very useful, even as a

standard.



> The point was to make the BRCS a base line set of rules

> that people could use as a basis to make their own house

> rules (like paladins with different alignments). The goal was

> to stick as close to the core 2nd ed BR material as possible

> and still maintain the balance of 3.5.



That`s a dubious goal. It makes more sense to mirror what BR players are

actually doing than to mirror the core rules, especially when your efforts

appear ever so school-marmish. Instead of pretending to proscription, why

not attempt a little description. There are good arguments for why paladins

of a LN or NG god would still be LG, I know, I made them. But no one even

bothers to make an argument, you just assume it must be so because the book

said do. That`s about the lamest explanation you could possibly offer. We

already have the book, what the hell do we want this thing for? To mimic a

standard no one uses? Why not write the thing in Latin while you`re at it.

At least if you took some measure of how widespread a thing was you could at

least argue that its not sufficiently widespread to merit inclusion. But, I

haven`t seen that argument.



> Some people are going to want to use different alignments

> for paladins and even include paladins of gods that didn`t have

> them in 2nd ed.



I think if half of all BR players include Zup the Goat-god, it should merit

discussion. If a fraction of players were devoted to Zup and most of the

rest just shrugged, it should merit some discussion. Its when a minority

wants Zup and the majority of players would rather do without Zup that there

really doesn`t need to be some consideration. Though even then it would be

nice to see some measurement of who was where.



> But if we put this into the BRCS then it makes it the base

> line rule instead of leaving it up to DMs to make their own

> house rules and using the 2nd ed core as the baseline.



Which makes sense if its the actual base-line in practice. Why not see

what`s going on out here. The poll taken on paladins asked if they should

multi-class freely and if each paladin version merited its own write-up. As

I read the conclusions, each paladin is getting its own write-up. So why no

effort to see of they should get their own alignment too? Why no effort to

see how many people would entertain a paladin of Ruornil?



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 03:54 AM 4/17/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>Actually there is only a single paragraph mentioning a paladin of Rournil

>in the PS of Medoere and that has to do with the gifting of the Sword of

>Enlien which functions as a holy avenger in the hands of a paladin of

>Rournil. And this was supposed to be a unique individual (re - a single

>person and not a class).

>

> So I would hardly say it is predominantly mentioned.



As opposed to absolutely no mention of dwarven paladins.... That`s despite

the existence of PSo dedicated to Baruk Azhik. I haven`t heard any

rationale for that change other than the impression that it fits into the

3e rules somehow. There are whole units of knightly soldiers dedicated to

Ruornil`s worship, the god`s description gives him a role in protecting

natural sources of the continent, which is the kind of thing to which one

could dedicate a knightly class to of the type that is apt for

paladins. Paladins dedicated to Ruornil are much more appropriate for

inclusion in an update than paladins of Moradin which, again, has

absolutely no basis in the original materials that I`ve found.



Please bear in mind also, that I`m a guy whose been arguing for freeing up

many aspects of the paladin character class since sometime in the 20th

century. Paladins for BR dwarves, though? Nope. Hate it.



At 04:06 AM 4/17/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



> The definition of CG really fits the description of Cuircean`s paladins

> from 2nd ed. While the LG approach comes real close to Haely, Avani and

> even Nesirie`s paladins. They all had sects and orders of knights with a

> strong sense of discipline and honor.



For Haelyn and Avani, of course, it`s apt but I`m less convinced regarding

Nesirie. NG better reflects that goddess` "knightly warrior class"

IMO. In general, Nesirie`s paladins didn`t get a whole lot of attention in

the original materials. If they were given a little reflection, however,

they probably would have been NG.



Of course, if the whole "paladin" thing was given even more attention the

alignment issues would have been described as I noted in the previous

post. The LG requirement in 3e is a half-assed 2e- holdover that should go

the way of the dodo...



...and it should be a prestige class.



Gary

[geeman]

At 09:33 PM 4/16/2004 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>I`ve had paladin`s of Ruornil since `98 or so. They`ve been discussed on

>the list at some length ever since the PS of Medoere. Certainaly there

>should be some inquiry as to how common such a class concept is, and whether

>or not the concept consistant among those who use it (or accept it). My own

>notion of the character is that he hunts undead and other shadow world

>manifestations.



I think that fighting the "war of shadow" would be a primary,

emphasis. There are, however, aspects of the class that might have to do

with protecting the sources of Cerilia or a statecraft/protection role of

the class in relationship to the role of such characters in a realm like

Medoere or the other less prominent nations in which knightly warriors

dedicated to Ruornil exist. Those last two could have a special ability

dedicated to them (or the special ability of the paladn class might be

tweaked a bit: smite evil=smite evil or shadow denizen) or might just

influence the class skills.



Gary

[Osprey]

The LG requirement in 3e is a half-assed 2e- holdover that should go
the way of the dodo...


Couldn&#39;t have said it better myself. B)

I think Rangers make better Ruornil-type defenders than knightly paladins, whatever some Players&#39; Secrets book says...I take them with a grain of salt compared to the core materials. As Rangers are better suited to the places Ruornil protects (the wilder the better), they make much more sense as a default militant type for the warriors of the Moon Lord.

Now, when we&#39;re talking prestige classes, undead hunters and some paladin/ranger blend specific to Ruornil might be extremely appropriate for the elites, especially one based on a specific monastic order like the Champions of the Celestial Spell or some such.

Now if there were a full Champion(?) of Ruornil class designed as a seperate class, that would also be cool, and allow low-level paladin/ranger-types even (4 skill points per level, Divine Grace, Favored Enemies, Turn Undead, Lay Hands, w/ ranger spells at higher levels?).

Allowing free ranger/paladin multiclassing would also be a decent compromise, though less specifically tailored to the campaign setting.

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, all in all, most of these things could be accomplished by a different write-up of the Divine Champion, a very interesting prestige class from FR (and yes, this series of books had some very good ones, especially for inspiration):

Champion of the Faith
5-level prestige class

Requirements:
Alignment: Same as patron&#39;s; see Patron requirement.
Race: Human.
Base Attack Bonus: +5.
Skills: Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks.
Feats: Weapon Focus in the deity&#39;s favoured weapon.
Patron: A champion of the faith must have a patron deity, and it must be the deity of which he is a champion.
Special: Must have accomplished a quest for no other benefit other than allowing entry to the inner circle of the patron&#39;s church.


Class Skills
Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Jump (Str), Knowledge (religion) (Int), Lead (Cha), Ride (Dex), Spot (Wis), Swim (Str), and Warcraft (Int).

Skill Points at Each Level: 2 + Int modifier.


BAB: High.
Saves: Fortitude - High, Reflex - Low, Will - High.


Class Features
Weapon and Armour Proficiency: A champion of the faith is proficient with all simple and martial weapons, light armour, medium armour, and shields (but not with tower shields).
Lay on Hands (Sp): As a defender of the faith, a champion of the faith may lay on hands to heal himself, his animal companion, cohort, familar, or another creature following the same patron deity as himself. The ability cures 2 point of damage per champion of the faith level times his Charisma bonus.
Fighter Feat: At 2nd level and again at 4th level, a champion of the faith may choose any [Fighter] feat as a bonus feat as long as he meets all prerequisites.
Divine Protection: At 2nd level, champions of the faith add a +1 bonus to their saving throws against divine spells, as well as the spell-like and supernatural abilities of outsiders. This bonus increases to +2 at 4th level.
Smite Infidel: Once per day at 3rd level, a champion of the faith may attempt a smite attack against a creature not following his patron deity. This ability is otherwise identical to a paladin&#39;s smite evil ability.
Divine Wrath: +3 to attack, damage and saves plus DR 5/- for a number of rounds equal to the champion of the faith&#39;s Charisma bonus. Gained at 5th level.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Osprey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 6:14 PM





> I think Rangers make better Ruornil-type defenders than knightly

paladins,



That`s true if we think of Ruornil as the god of sacred places and sources,

but when we contemplate his role against the SW a strait up paladin works

really nicely. I ditched laying on hands, aura of courage, and the

paladin`s mount. In exchange I gave him Hated Enemy (Undead) at 5th level,

extended divine health to include paralysis, and remove disease to remove

paralysis too. At 8th level, the paladin could expend a Turn attempt to

cast Dispel Evil.



A nice class for combating the Shadow.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[RaspK_FOG]

Indeed... B)

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Apr 17 2004, 02:30 PM
At 03:54 AM 4/17/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>Actually there is only a single paragraph mentioning a paladin of Rournil

>in the PS of Medoere and that has to do with the gifting of the Sword of

>Enlien which functions as a holy avenger in the hands of a paladin of

>Rournil. And this was supposed to be a unique individual (re - a single

>person and not a class).

>

> So I would hardly say it is predominantly mentioned.



As opposed to absolutely no mention of dwarven paladins.... That`s despite

the existence of PSo dedicated to Baruk Azhik. I haven`t heard any

rationale for that change other than the impression that it fits into the

3e rules somehow.
Gary


Gary you are comparing apples and oranges.

Of course there was no mention of dwarven paladins in 2nd ed BR, paladins were an exclusive class for humans throughout 2nd ed. 3rd ed opened things up to other races. It also opened up dwarven and halfling wizards. Yes they were forbidden in 2nd ed BR but again that was because they were forbidden in all of 2nd ed.

[irdeggman]

From the PS of Medoere pgs 30 and 31

“When Suris Enlien used the Sword of Enlien to slay her father, she broke a cardinal rule of her faith-she used an edged weapon. Ruornil forgave her, for he knew it was the only option available to the girl at the time. However, since that fateful night, no one else has wielded the sword.

The weapon remains in the possession of the regent, as it has surpassed its place as a family relic and become a symbol of Medoere. Like Lady Suris before him, the regent&#39;s waiting for a champion to step forward who can wield the sword in defense of the domain. Lady Suris had a vision of this champion. He would be a knight of the utmost courage, faith, and battle skill, a holy warrior with no desires but to keep Medoere safe and free. In short, the vision prophesied that a paladin of great ability would become Medoere&#39;s champion.

Five years ago. Lady Suris held a tournament to see if such a knight existed within her domain. Although she saw many fine warriors, none of them possessed the qualities that Ruornil required. She locked the weapon away, but secretly watched for the champion to appear. Thus far, he has not stepped forward.

Upon turning the theocracy over to the new regent, Lady Suris emphasized the need to find the champion who would wield the Sword of Enlien for Medoere. "This should be one of your main tasks." she said, "for the days are coming when Medoere will need its champion to lead it through the troubles ahead."

The regent and Lady Suris both know that the Sword of Enlien is a holy avenger. In the hands of a true paladin who believes in Ruornil and is loyal to Medoere, the weapon functions as described in the Dungeon Master Guide. The regent shouldn’t reveal this secret until he has found a worthy champion to award the weapon.”

I don’t see how anyone can possible read this as anything but refering to a single individual who will fill this bill. No way can this be read that there is an entire class of paladins of Ruornil. If so then why wasn’t a suitable champion already found in the previous tournament?



As far as alignments of paladins of Avani and Nesirie in the core 2nd ed books.

As Gary pointed out there is a decided lack of attention given to Nesirie in this regard. The only paladin mentioned that I could find was in Cities of the Sun: pg 65 Ketifah min tomad a 7th level paladin of Nasri whose alignment is mentioned as Lawful Good.

There are more examples of Avani’s paladins, but still not numerous. The ones I found are:

Ruins of Empire:
Pg 44 Assan ibn Daouta the ruler of Elinie a 10th level paladin whose alignment is mentioned as Lawful Good.

Pg 77 Kalilah bint daouda a 5th level paladin whose alignment is listed as Lawful Neutral. Gary has mentioned this as a possible typo and if one looks at the fact that she is supposedly the daughter of Assan ibn Daouta and combined with the fact that her name is spelled incorrectly in the entry it is highly likely that this was another of the numerous typos and editorial errors in the original material.

Cities of the Sun:
Pg 14 Gerad ibn Farid el-Arrasi, the ruler of Ariya and is a 7th level paladin whose alignment is listed as Lawful Good.


The main problem I have is people wanting to change the core rules in general and trying to use this project as a means to accomplish it. This is the wrong medium to change things. Everyone has the right to make changes to their own table top games in any way they see fit but changes to a rule set that is supposed to be matching the core rules and yet maintain the original feel/flavor of the 2nd ed setting, is not the correct place.

Making it a requirement that a paladin must have the same alignment as his/her deity is one such change. While in many ways it makes sense - I never meant to infer that it didn&#39;t - it just so drastically alters the core rules in so doing that it literaly screams HOUSE RULES.

[geeman]

At 05:06 AM 4/18/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>Gary you are comparing apples and oranges.

>

>Of course there was no mention of dwarven paladins in 2nd ed BR, paladins

>were an exclusive class for humans throughout 2nd ed. 3rd ed opened

>things up to other races. It also opened up dwarven and halfling wizards.

>Yes they were forbidden in 2nd ed BR but again that was because they were

>forbidden in all of 2nd ed.



Oh, it`s not just apples and oranges; it`s apples and rutabagas. The class

could have been allowed to dwarves in the original version of the

setting. It`s not a particularly dramatic inclusion--certainly less

radical than chaotic good paladins were. The very idea of paladins not

being lawful good was heretical for many people.



It`s not just a matter of allowing or restricting the class to humans in

the 2e version of the setting. It was further restricted to specific human

races (with, of course, the traditional BR example of contradictory

information in a Vos paladin.) The class was MORE restrictive than it was

in 2e. Expanding the use of the class in what is nominally called "a

conversion" misses the point of having the campaign setting restrictions in

the first place. Furthermore, as I`ve noted several times in the past, the

class just isn`t apt for describing the dwarven theology. Giving Cerilian

dwarves things like the ability to summon a warhorse is just silly. (It`s

silly in 3e too, but given that it`s a superfluous inclusion in a BR

conversion it`s doubly so.) Even extending the summoning ability into new

and different mounts makes little sense. Do we need dwarves riding dire

moles or something more "appropriate" to a subterranean race?



Still the only rationale for the inclusion I`ve heard is that paladins of

Moradin somehow fit into the 3e rules better somehow. How is that

exactly? Why extend the paladin class to Moradin but not to Ruornil when

there actually is material in the original texts to support such an

inclusion, but none for Moradin?



IMO, dwarf "holy warriors" are better portrayed by allowing them to take

levels as both fighter and cleric without restriction (the way the 2e BR

setting allowed them to multi-class.) "Preferred Classes: Fighter and

Cleric." That`s it. Don`t need paladins of Moradin at all. In many ways

that`s what a paladin is--a warrior/priest combo, but the 3e version is in

many ways a hybrid of that class geared towards a knightly theme. If there

was some sort of conversion of the class that was more extensive--a "True

Follower of Moradin" or something like that it would be more legit, but to

just include the 3e paladin class and tie it to Moradin doesn`t make a lot

of sense.



The conversion removes the class/race restrictions from the original

rules. That`s fine for the most part, though several are really worth

keeping. From what I can tell there`s no restrictions at all on

paladins. Halfling paladins of Cuiraecen are fine in the conversion. I

don`t think anybody really needs to see that, and I don`t think the setting

is particularly served by that change.



Gary

[geeman]

At 05:57 AM 4/18/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



> From the PS of Medoere pgs 30 and 31

>

>"When Suris Enlien used the Sword of Enlien to slay her father, she broke

>a cardinal rule of her faith-she used an edged weapon. Ruornil forgave

>her, for he knew it was the only option available to the girl at the time.

>However, since that fateful night, no one else has wielded the sword.

>

>The weapon remains in the possession of the regent, as it has surpassed

>its place as a family relic and become a symbol of Medoere. Like Lady

>Suris before him, the regent`s waiting for a champion to step forward who

>can wield the sword in defense of the domain. Lady Suris had a vision of

>this champion. He would be a knight of the utmost courage, faith, and

>battle skill, a holy warrior with no desires but to keep Medoere safe and

>free. In short, the vision prophesied that a paladin of great ability

>would become Medoere`s champion.

>

>Five years ago. Lady Suris held a tournament to see if such a knight

>existed within her domain. Although she saw many fine warriors, none of

>them possessed the qualities that Ruornil required. She locked the weapon

>away, but secretly watched for the champion to appear. Thus far, he has

>not stepped forward.

>

>Upon turning the theocracy over to the new regent, Lady Suris emphasized

>the need to find the champion who would wield the Sword of Enlien for

>Medoere. "This should be one of your main tasks." she said,

>"for the days are coming when Medoere will need its champion to lead

>it through the troubles ahead."

>

>The regent and Lady Suris both know that the Sword of Enlien is a holy

>avenger. In the hands of a true paladin who believes in Ruornil and is

>loyal to Medoere, the weapon functions as described in the Dungeon Master

>Guide. The regent shouldn`t reveal this secret until he has found a worthy

>champion to award the weapon."

>

>I don`t see how anyone can possible read this as anything but refering to

>a single individual who will fill this bill. No way can this be read that

>there is an entire class of paladins of Ruornil. If so then why wasn`t a

>suitable champion already found in the previous tournament?



OK, here`s a couple of ways to read it to mean that there are more than

one, or that more than one could already exist:



First off, it doesn`t actually say that no paladins were present to qualify

to wield the sword. It says that "Although she saw many fine warriors,

none of them possessed the qualities that Ruornil required." That does NOT

say there were no paladins of Ruornil in the tournament at all. It means

only that "a paladin of great ability" was not found at that

tournament. There could have been dozens of paladins of Ruornil there, but

none of them that stood out as meeting the needs of Suris

Enlien/Medoere/RCS. The paladins who were present might not have been of

high enough level, for example.



Now, that might sound silly at first, but in a low level setting like BR it

could actually be very limiting. I don`t know what "great ability" means

but if we cut it off at 10th level in a nation like Medoere which has three

provinces and a population of probably less than 30,000 that limits the

number of characters quite a bit. Using the demographic stuff I`ve fiddled

around with in the past that makes for less than 70 characters of 10th or

higher level in the whole kingdom, and that group includes all the rogues,

clerics, fighters, nobles, experts, commoners, etc. Paladins probably

represent a lot smaller percentage of characters amongst that population

than do the more ubiquitous classes like fighter or rogue, and paladins of

Ruornil are very likely rarer still, so it`s pretty likely one just didn`t

make the grade.



Secondly, the requirements for the sword are actually very

particular. Even if a "paladin of great ability" were found at the

tournament s/he might not have had "no desires but to keep Medoere safe and

free." Paladins of Ruornil might have shown up but had other agendas--like

fighting off the creatures of the Shadow World, defending their native

provinces, or wandering the continent protecting magical sources throughout

the land--all major emphasis of Ruornil that would be appropriate for

paladin characters. The sword only works as a Holy Avenger if wielded by

"a true paladin who believes in Ruornil and is loyal to Medoere." Note the

"and" there. It`s not enough to just be a paladin of Ruornil, but since

the sword is a divinely created weapon imbued with its power during the

revolution that led to the creation of the theocracy of Medoere it requires

more than just any old run of the mill paladin of Ruornil to illicite its

powers. It`s literally a STATE magic item.



In short, the individual who has not yet been found is "a paladin of great

ability" who is also absolutely dedicated to Medoere. There could be any

number of others who fit one or the other (or neither) who are still

paladins or Ruornil.



Most importantly, doesn`t the search and tournament kind of indicate that

there must be some characters running around who might qualify? That is,

if Suris Enlien had no hope of actually finding a paladin of Ruornil why

hold the tournament to try to find a particular one?



Also, paladins of Ruornil might be a relatively new development. Ruornil

is one of the more active gods of Cerilia (despite the general "hands-off"

oath of the gods) and his activities might now require paladins. The

tournament was held five years ago, after all. Who knows who`s been

levelling up or coming of age in the meantime?



Lastly, its important to note that having a little text dedicated to

paladins of Ruornil does not mean that there needs to be (or would

necessarily be) dozens of them running around. The questions to ask are:

Will a significant enough number of people use such information to make it

a worthwhile inclusion in the conversion? Does it fit the theme of the

setting and the text of the original materials? I`d say yes to both of

those questions for paladins of Ruornil (and no to both in relation to

paladins of Moradin.)



>The main problem I have is people wanting to change the core rules in

>general and trying to use this project as a means to accomplish it. This

>is the wrong medium to change things.



Well, it seems to me that if that`s the case including paladins of Moradin

is an example of something not to do.



Gary

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 10:57 PM





> While in many ways it makes sense - I never meant to

> infer that it didn`t - it just so drastically alters the core rules

> in so doing that it literaly screams HOUSE RULES.



Forgotten Realms is Ed Greenwood`s house rules.

Greyhawk is Gary Gygax`s house rules.

Birthright is Rich Baker`s house rules.



You may retort that these are settings, something more than house rules, but

they were house rules which became widely adopted. By that token, any house

rule that is widely adopted ceases to be a house rule and has become a

common practice. Pretending that there is a distinction between house rules

and what the BRCS team is doing is like pretending that a dig becomes a

different creature when you move from left to right.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[ConjurerDragon]

Kenneth Gauck schrieb:



>----- Original Message -----

>From: "Osprey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

>Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 6:14 PM

>

>

>> I think Rangers make better Ruornil-type defenders than knightly

>>

>>

>paladins,

>

>That`s true if we think of Ruornil as the god of sacred places and sources,

>but when we contemplate his role against the SW a strait up paladin works

>really nicely. I ditched laying on hands, aura of courage, and the

>paladin`s mount.

>

What does this Paladin do if he meets a ghost with frightful moan? The

Aura of Courage is invaluable against any fear-attacks and some undead

have such attacks.

bye

Michael

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>

Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 11:47 AM





> What does this Paladin do if he meets a ghost with frightful moan? The

> Aura of Courage is invaluable against any fear-attacks and some undead

> have such attacks.



He runs away and hides behind a tree.



I took away Aura of Courage because, while its obviously useful in the case

described above, I prefered the other abilities for a Briggellen (bright

warrior), and resisting fear is really the domain of Haelyn and Cuiraecen.

I wouldn`t include Aura of Courage for any paladin other than theirs.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[ryancaveney]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

>

> > While in many ways it makes sense - I never meant to

> > infer that it didn`t - it just so drastically alters the core rules

> > in so doing that it literaly screams HOUSE RULES.

>

> Pretending that there is a distinction between house rules

> and what the BRCS team is doing is like pretending that a dig becomes a

> different creature when you move from left to right.



Precisely. Among other things, from as strict a definition of house vs.

core rules as Duane advocates, the very use of 3e rules at all, instead of

the truly official 2e, is itself a massive house rule. Amusingly, all the

endless bickering on the topic of the BRCS has made me believe it is

actually much *harder* to convert AD&D-2e BR to D&D-3e than it is to

convert it to Ars Magica or HeroQuest or some other, totally different

game system -- the baggage of 2e often seems more like a millstone around

the BRCS`s neck than a proud tradition upon which to build.



Furthermore, I thought we`d all pretty much agreed years ago (long before

WOTC ever mentioned plans for 3e) that the original BR Rulebook was

published still needing enough editing that it wasn`t really possible to

play the game without at least some house rules.



No conversion project has ever been, or can ever be, about "No House

Rules" vs. "Yes House Rules" -- only "These House Rules" vs. "Those House

Rules" is possible.





Ryan Caveney

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Apr 18 2004, 12:50 AM
OK, here`s a couple of ways to read it to mean that there are more than

one, or that more than one could already exist:



First off, it doesn`t actually say that no paladins were present to qualify

to wield the sword. It says that "Although she saw many fine warriors,

none of them possessed the qualities that Ruornil required." That does NOT

say there were no paladins of Ruornil in the tournament at all. It means

only that "a paladin of great ability" was not found at that

tournament. There could have been dozens of paladins of Ruornil there, but

none of them that stood out as meeting the needs of Suris

Enlien/Medoere/RCS. The paladins who were present might not have been of

high enough level, for example.




Secondly, the requirements for the sword are actually very

particular. Even if a "paladin of great ability" were found at the

tournament s/he might not have had "no desires but to keep Medoere safe and

free." Paladins of Ruornil might have shown up but had other agendas--like

fighting off the creatures of the Shadow World, defending their native

provinces, or wandering the continent protecting magical sources throughout

the land--all major emphasis of Ruornil that would be appropriate for

paladin characters. The sword only works as a Holy Avenger if wielded by

"a true paladin who believes in Ruornil and is loyal to Medoere." Note the

"and" there. It`s not enough to just be a paladin of Ruornil, but since

the sword is a divinely created weapon imbued with its power during the

revolution that led to the creation of the theocracy of Medoere it requires

more than just any old run of the mill paladin of Ruornil to illicite its

powers. It`s literally a STATE magic item.



In short, the individual who has not yet been found is "a paladin of great

ability" who is also absolutely dedicated to Medoere. There could be any

number of others who fit one or the other (or neither) who are still

paladins or Ruornil.




Most importantly, doesn`t the search and tournament kind of indicate that

there must be some characters running around who might qualify? That is,

if Suris Enlien had no hope of actually finding a paladin of Ruornil why

hold the tournament to try to find a particular one?




Gary


Let&#39;s see here:


While there is no text in the PS of Medoere that talks about there not being any paladins (as a class) there is however text in the BRRB (and corollary inthe Book of Priestcraft to support this) that there are none:

BRRB pg 11 “In Cerilia, paladins are found only among the Anuireans and the Khinasi; only characters of these two nationalities may choose this class. A patron deity must be chosen for a paladin when the character is created. Anuirean paladins can choose to serve Haelyn, Cuiracėn, or Nesirie. Khinasi paladins follow either Halaϊa (Haelyn) or Avani.


So a specific statement to the contrary is needed to rebuke a specific statement.

As far as the people dedicating themselves to defending Medoere:

PS of Medoere pg 2 “. . . .Medoere’s subjects are a hardy lot, driven in equal measure by a strict work ethic and a faith in the land, the regent, and the Mood god they’ve pledged their lives to.”

pg 4 “Your army is small, but loyal and ready. Your people are hard working and true to their faith.”

Under the history section it reads very much Joan of Arc-ish. The people hearing the call of their god and following his voice (Suris) into battle against vastly superior forces. {sounds like dedication to the land to me}

A real world correlation could be made to the state of Isreal (especially in its early days, oh like the first 6 years) and its open door policy of citizenship to Jews. A recent country is very likely to have its citizens dedicated to its defense. Medoere is less than 10 years old at the time of the PS (closer to 6 by the timeline).

The reference to holy warriors/knight vice paladins is a much more likely basis that this "paladin of Ruornil" is actually a holy warrior. It is much more logical to read the text in the PS as referring to a singular champion who can rally the country (also mentioned in the advice section of the PS)

It should be noted that Medoere is the only theocracy of the Moon God and as such is especially blessed by him and so is its people.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by ryancaveney@Apr 19 2004, 06:30 PM
Among other things, from as strict a definition of house vs.

core rules as Duane advocates, the very use of 3e rules at all, instead of

the truly official 2e, is itself a massive house rule. Amusingly, all the

endless bickering on the topic of the BRCS has made me believe it is

actually much *harder* to convert AD&D-2e BR to D&D-3e than it is to

convert it to Ars Magica or HeroQuest or some other, totally different

game system -- the baggage of 2e often seems more like a millstone around

the BRCS`s neck than a proud tradition upon which to build.



Furthermore, I thought we`d all pretty much agreed years ago (long before

WOTC ever mentioned plans for 3e) that the original BR Rulebook was

published still needing enough editing that it wasn`t really possible to

play the game without at least some house rules.



No conversion project has ever been, or can ever be, about "No House

Rules" vs. "Yes House Rules" -- only "These House Rules" vs. "Those House

Rules" is possible.





Ryan Caveney


Actually Ryan, saying using 3.5 mechanics instead of 2nd ed ones is another case of apples and oranges. It is a different mechanic system, it doesn&#39;t mean theat the core setting material is lost.

I am not against &#39;creating&#39; new rules to fix broken ones. That is then we as a community are agreeing to a set of house rules to fix these things.

I am against trying to insert a set of house rules for things that aren&#39;t/weren&#39;t broken in 2nd ed. Paladins for other human gods than those listed in the BRRB is a prime example. This is a matter of personal preference on the DMs&#39; parts this is not an inherent break in the 2nd ed game mechanics. The same canbe said for paladin alignments. These are the types of things that shouldn&#39;t be bickered about here for inclusion in the BRCS. It opens up a can of worms to everyone to propose their own house rules for inclusion if only for the reason that "I use this and I think it is a great idea." this type of inclusion/discussion will definitely lead to the collapse of the BRCS as you have constantly fortold Ryan. If we as a community try to keep in mind that this project is attempting to move BR into 3.5, stay true to its feel and flavor and create a baseline setting that people can create their own house rules off of then it helps keep things focused.

3.5 by its very nature introduced many changes mechanically which cause changes to how BR would play/be conducted. These are the things that are changes that must be addressed and dealt with accordingly.

[irdeggman]

Ryan (and others) I just posted an addition to the pinned subjects at the Royal Library. I think it will help explain the seeming obsession the BRCS team has with only using 3/3.5 for the BRCS revision and specifically why we can&#39;t use Ars Magica, Hero Quest or some other non WotC mechanic.


http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php...opic=2339&st=0& (http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2339&st=0&)

[geeman]

At 07:11 PM 4/19/2004 -0400, Ryan Caveney wrote:



>[T]he baggage of 2e often seems more like a millstone around the BRCS`s

>neck than a proud tradition upon which to build.



Did anyone ever really consider it a proud tradition?



Gary

[Ming I]

Originally posted by Irdeggman on Apr 20 2004@ 11:32 AM
I am against trying to insert a set of house rules for things that aren&#39;t/weren&#39;t broken in 2nd ed. Paladins for other human gods than those listed in the BRRB is a prime example. This is a matter of personal preference on the DMs&#39; parts this is not an inherent break in the 2nd ed game mechanics. The same canbe said for paladin alignments. These are the types of things that shouldn&#39;t be bickered about here for inclusion in the BRCS. It opens up a can of worms to everyone to propose their own house rules for inclusion if only for the reason that "I use this and I think it is a great idea." this type of inclusion/discussion will definitely lead to the collapse of the BRCS as you have constantly fortold Ryan. If we as a community try to keep in mind that this project is attempting to move BR into 3.5, stay true to its feel and flavor and create a baseline setting that people can create their own house rules off of then it helps keep things focused.

3.5 by its very nature introduced many changes mechanically which cause changes to how BR would play/be conducted. These are the things that are changes that must be addressed and dealt with accordingly.
There are a number of inconsistencies with the Birthright Campaign Setting material. For the most part, this isn&#39;t broken material, it is inadequately defined material and/or contradictory statements that arise from extremely poor editing. These inconsistencies, and inadequacies can easily be "fixed" by the liberal dousing of the material with house rules (and alternate game mechanics).

Irdeggman, instead of deciding what game mechanics (or house rules) you like (and thus will get included) and what you don&#39;t agree with (and thus gets tossed), why don&#39;t you continue doing what you&#39;ve already started: accept all ideas for the game mechanic and then allow the community to vote on them. If later, a person comes along with an idea the majority of the community states they like better, you can just hold another vote with the previous options plus the new one. If the community picks the new option, then the option should be adopted and put into the current working document. or in the revised BCS if one has been released.

The statement "...try to keep in mind that this project is attempting to move BR into 3.5, stay true to its feel and flavor and create a baseline setting that people can create their own house rules off of..." would set me off on a tangent that I just don&#39;t have time for right now, so I&#39;ll answer that later. ;)

[geeman]

At 12:20 PM 4/20/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



> While there is no text in the PS of Medoere that talks about there not

> being any paladins (as a class) there is however text in the BRRB (and

> corollary inthe Book of Priestcraft to support this) that there are none:

>

> BRRB pg 11 "In Cerilia, paladins are found only among the Anuireans and

> the Khinasi; only characters of these two nationalities may choose this

> class. A patron deity must be chosen for a paladin when the character is

> created. Anuirean paladins can choose to serve Haelyn, Cuiracėn, or

> Nesirie. Khinasi paladins follow either Halaϊa (Haelyn) or Avani.

>

> So a specific statement to the contrary is needed to rebuke a specific

> statement.



Is that the actual standard employed by the design team? If so, then

what`s with including paladins of Moradin? No specific statement to rebuke

that exclusion in the above quoted material....



In any case, given that everything in that text is ignored or modified in

the update, I don`t think it really makes a lot of sense to use it later to

support a counter argument for the exact same kind of conversion/expansion

that the update itself employs. Again, there`s no specific statement for

the inclusion of paladins of Moradin, so why require one now for paladins

of Ruornil, so why use the "specific statement" standard when it comes to

this issue, but ignore it when it comes to opening up the racial access to

those (and all) classes in an update? The updated Chapter 1 goes with the

more generalized 3e system of race and class interaction, and unless I`ve

read incorrectly there are no racial restrictions on paladins at all aside

from the standard racial favored class. Not only dwarves have access to

the paladin class (of Moradin) but they can also be paladins of any of the

standard four gods, and any character of any race can take levels as a

paladin whether they come from one of those cultures or not. They are

"rare" but unless the guidelines specifically rule them out half-elves and

halflings, even goblins and orogs, can be paladins of any of the gods that

have them. So in addition to dwarven paladins of Moradin (or any) we could

have orog paladins of Moradin, halfling paladins of Cuiraecen, elven

paladins of Avani under the Chapter 1 update.



However, the point here that I`m trying to make is that if one is going to

include paladins of Moradin for some reason (a reason still not expressed

other than "it fits") paladins of Ruornil make a lot more sense in

comparison. In BR, which has a specific 2e precedence for paladins with

differing special abilities and non-LG alignment, I`d argue that just about

any of the human deities could have appropriately aligned/abilities

paladins in an update before I`d get to Moradin. (In fact, I`ve been

arguing just that for a long time.) In that context a paladin of Moradin

makes sense since it`s part of a general expansion of the whole system...

but at least tweak his special abilities, for cryin` out loud. No mount

for the paladin of Moradin, and one should consider whether or not they

should turn undead. Personally, I don`t get a real big "lay on hands" vibe

off dwarves, but that might be just me.



Optionally (and better) it should just be a prestige class--but so should

all paladins. I could see, however, making paladins of Moradin a prestige

class while making the "standard" paladins a regular core class. That

would, at least, have parity with the 2e system and abide by the

self-imposed "specific statement" standard expressed above....



>It should be noted that Medoere is the only theocracy of the Moon God and

>as such is especially blessed by him and so is its people.



While the text does point out the nature of the theocracy in general, I

think it`s possible to read too much into that text. It`s a statement of

generality, not an absolute. The people of Medoere would be more loyal to

their realm on the whole, but that`s a trend or stereotype rather than a

direct relationship. Paladins of Ruornil might have any sort of personal

dedication with loyalty to Medoere ranking somewhere below their own

priority just like any other person, and the description of the Sword of

Enlien is pretty clear that loyalty to Medoere must be not just a priority

but the first priority of the person who wields it. In fact, the

description in the PsoMedoere indicates that the paladin in question can

have NO other priority, and as noted there are several major things that

paladins of Ruornil might consider more important. Even as a non-game

mechanical role-playing standard that`s pretty tough.



However, when it comes to the qualifications of the individual to wield the

Sword of Enlien I think the game mechanical "of great ability" is a more

significant factor than the "loyal to Medoere" aspect, especially since

"great ability" would be the kind of thing most easily tested in a

tournament. Combining that factor with the small percentage of characters

who take levels as a paladin, with only a small fraction of those who would

be dedicated to Ruornil, the results are a very, very small pool of

possible candidates. It`s well under 0.01% which is the number I generally

use to compute the total number of true mages on the whole

continent. There are more unicorns on Cerilia than 10th level paladins of

Ruornil.



Gary

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, irdeggman wrote:



> Actually Ryan, saying using 3.5 mechanics instead of 2nd ed ones is

> another case of apples and oranges. It is a different mechanic system,

> it doesn`t mean theat the core setting material is lost.



You seem to forget that a central facet of this debate has always been the

question, "Of the many rules in BR, which count as `core setting` and thus

should modify 3rd ed, versus which count as `2nd ed` and thus should be

modified by 3rd ed?" Examples: do monks exist in Cerilia? Do dwarven

wizards? Can Cerilian bards cast healing spells? The trouble with the

"apples and oranges" metaphor is that there is nary a single fruit in

Birthright`s cornucopia (or Carmen Miranda hat?) which we can unanimously

agree is unambiguously one or the other. Apple versus orange here is

entirely a matter of personal opinion, not objective fact.



> I am against trying to insert a set of house rules for things that

> aren`t/weren`t broken in 2nd ed.



But what I keep saying is that there is no agreement as to which things

are broken and which aren`t. Again, totally subjective. The personal

preferences you keep disparaging are the only thing we have to go on.

Indeed, what is the purpose of the polls you make other than to assess

personal preferences about what game mechanics should be? Any conversion

document, the BRCS included, must by its very nature consist entirely of

house rules. A conversion document is nothing but a list of changes to be

made to the original rules -- it is therefore, quite clearly, by

definition, exactly equal to a compendium of house rules.



> It opens up a can of worms to everyone to propose their own house

> rules for inclusion if only for the reason that "I use this and I

> think it is a great idea."



Tell me, then, what is the BRCS if not precisely a set of house rules

created for the reason, "I use 3e and I think it is a great idea"?



Furthermore, people sharing their ideas -- good, bad, reasonable, lunatic,

unbalanced, unpopular, non-D&D, and any and every other kind even remotely

inspired by Birthright gaming materials -- is exactly what the Birthright

fan community discussion group is for. People proposing everything under

the sun is exactly what should be encouraged. That, not the editing of

the BRCS, has always been the primary purpose of this resource. I find it

eminently reasonable that people post rules suggestions which were never

intended for incorporation into the BRCS in threads which mainly concern

editing it, since there are precious few around these days which don`t.



This is the single most appropriate place for anyone to say, "Hey, I had

this idea about Birthright -- tell me what you think!" I find the

response, "That`s not appropriate for the BRCS," spectacularly unhelpful.



> If we as a community try to keep in mind that this project is

> attempting to move BR into 3.5, stay true to its feel and flavor and

> create a baseline setting that people can create their own house rules

> off of then it helps keep things focused.



This project has eaten the world, and is now munching on the sun. Debates

about what BR`s feel and flavor really are, and all the house rules tossed

into the air around it, are the most useful things it has yet produced.



> 3.5 by its very nature introduced many changes mechanically which

> cause changes to how BR would play/be conducted. These are the things

> that are changes that must be addressed and dealt with accordingly.



Yes, except we can`t actually tell which changes they are. =)



The ironic thing is, if Rich, Colin, Carrie, Ed et al. had actually also

written "Birthright Ars Magica", "GURPS Birthright" or somesuch, then we

would know how to write "Birthright D&D 3e": with two data points, we

would finally be able to distinguish which aspects of the original

materials really were intentional elements of setting design, and which

accidental consequences of the mechanics of the underlying FRPG. At

least, we would in any case in which the RPG systems in question differed

in their default mechanics. Lacking that, there simply is no objective

truth to be had. Heck, even if we did have that, I`m sure many people on

this list (myself, certainly ;) would be adamant that the creators had

done it *wrong*, and put forth a multitude of alternate ways it should

have been done instead, which is *exactly* what people should most be

encouraged to say right here, in this group for discussing Birthright.





Ryan Caveney

[Osprey]

In that context a paladin of Moradin
makes sense since it`s part of a general expansion of the whole system...
but at least tweak his special abilities, for cryin` out loud. No mount
for the paladin of Moradin, and one should consider whether or not they
should turn undead. Personally, I don`t get a real big "lay on hands" vibe
off dwarves, but that might be just me.


I consider Paladins of Moradin to be strongly earth-based, as Moradin himself is. To that end, I don&#39;t mind "earthy" divine types having healing magics (I think of healing muds/clays as a standard in folklore, hence a relation to divine healing). So Lay on hands works fine for me, even if the details of the power might involve something as organic as smearing a wound with special earths or mud plasters, then praying over it to enact the earths&#39; properties (= Laying on Hands dwarven style B) ).

Instead of mounts there are 2 options: the lower-powered option is to give them one domain of Moradin, like Earth or Law (?), at 1st-5th level.

The 2nd option (which I personally favor for inclusion) is at 5th level the Paladin of Moradin can summon an Earth Elemental once per day as a spell-like ability. The elemental stays for 1 round per paladin level, and its HD are to equal the paladin&#39;s level. While strong, the 1/day limit really balances out the constant but lower-powered effect of a paladin&#39;s warhorse.

And to that end, a similar Summon Water Elemental ability for Paladins of Neserie might also be a neat solution to replace the warhorse of normasl paladins. Along with free multiclassing as Clerics, of course. :ph34r:

I think the idea behind Paladins of Moradin being included in the BRCS is that from a 3.x perspective, paladins of Moradin should have existed all along, esp. since Moradin is a LG deity who is the dwarven &#39;All-Father.&#39; It made good sense to me, hence I had no problem allowing it to be included.

Paladins of human gods, on the other hand, were pretty specifically dealt with in the 2e game. I can see where irdeggman is coming from here...paladins of Ruornil would have been included if Rich Baker & Co. had envisioned them as a regular part of the BR world. The dwarves, in the original setting at least, got comparitively sparse and generic coverage, with just a couple of names thrown out. Now granted, I don&#39;t have the PS of Baruk-Azhik, but I bet paladins of Moradin would pretty seamlessly fit with the existing material, eh?

Paladins of Ruornil seem to work in 1 place: Medoere, and as to whether or not they are true paladins as a class is completely debatable. Here IS a specific case where a Holy Warrior or Undead Hunter prestige class would make perfect sense, as these are the elite champions of Ruornil and Medoere.

[RaspK_FOG]

Not meant to sound harsh, but will you stop with the Irdeggman bashing already? He does have at least one point, even if you have not remembered it, and he has not mentioned it:

In the revision-related polls, the one regarding paladins, he asked that if we have ideas for different paladin write-ups then we send them to him for evaluation; clogging the threads up for evaluation of ideas (which he specifically asked that we don&#39;t send&#33;) will not help any, and the same applies to bickering about the essential controversy of whether this or that is unbalanced, broken, or inconsistent&#33;

[Athos69]

If a Dwarven Paladin is unacceptable, let&#39;s just write a PrCl for Dwarven Clerics that grants them access to the War domain, adds a Lay on Hands and an Earth Elemental summoning ability...

[RaspK_FOG]

Why not do that anyway? I see no reason not to do so&#33; In fact, I would go as far as write up a prestige class that gives fewer cleric spellcasting levels and turning advancement, with the idiosyncracy of not requiring any divine spell-casting or turning ability; a little like the one above...

I will get down to it and present something in a day or two, I think...

[Ming I]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG posted on Apr 21 2004@ 12:17 PM
Not meant to sound harsh, but will you stop with the Irdeggman bashing already? He does have at least one point, even if you have not remembered it, and he has not mentioned it:

In the revision-related polls, the one regarding paladins, he asked that if we have ideas for different paladin write-ups then we send them to him for evaluation; clogging the threads up for evaluation of ideas (which he specifically asked that we don&#39;t send&#33;) will not help any, and the same applies to bickering about the essential controversy of whether this or that is unbalanced, broken, or inconsistent&#33;

Umm, not to sound harsh right back, but that&#39;s what these boards are for....discussion. If Irdeggman (or anyone else) wants to collect all the ideas for the game mechanics for a specific topic and then make a poll about them to see which ones the community most strongly supports, that&#39;s fine. If that person says instead, "Send me the write-ups, and I will choose which ones are viewed and which aren&#39;t", then that&#39;s wrong, and goes against the idea of these boards and I think the BCS as well.

The same goes for any discussion, or bickering (if you prefer that term) about unbalanced, broken or inconsistent game mechanics as long as the discussion is focused on finding a way to resolve those "problems".

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Ming I wrote:



> If that person says instead, "Send me the write-ups, and I will choose

> which ones are viewed and which aren`t", then that`s wrong, and goes

> against the idea of these boards and I think the BCS as well.



Exactly! The mode of interaction most useful to the editors of the BRCS

is the opposite of the mode most useful to everyone else. Dang.





Ryan Caveney

[Athos69]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Apr 21 2004, 02:43 PM
I will get down to it and present something in a day or two, I think...
Thanks - I tend to suck when it comes to balance issues regarding Prestiege classes. At one point I was considering a Warpriest of Moradin to gain access to the War domain, not advance in turning ability and *maybe* get tt summon a medium Earth Elememtal 1/day. Maybe if we throw some BR battle-scale abilities in there too to make them more of an asset in the eternal struggle with the Orogs it might be a refreshing change.

Hey&#33; what about Smite Orog? :)

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Ming I@Apr 21 2004, 06:26 PM

Umm, not to sound harsh right back, but that&#39;s what these boards are for....discussion. If Irdeggman (or anyone else) wants to collect all the ideas for the game mechanics for a specific topic and then make a poll about them to see which ones the community most strongly supports, that&#39;s fine. If that person says instead, "Send me the write-ups, and I will choose which ones are viewed and which aren&#39;t", then that&#39;s wrong, and goes against the idea of these boards and I think the BCS as well.

The same goes for any discussion, or bickering (if you prefer that term) about unbalanced, broken or inconsistent game mechanics as long as the discussion is focused on finding a way to resolve those "problems".
It is a real shame that people give the impression that they can&#39;t read. (I apologize for the apparent insult). But what I had posted was the following:

"Since it looks like there will be a variant to have separate paladin classes, I am very open to people sending me their "proposals". Then I&#39;ll either put them for votes, combine them, or just pick the one that looks the most complete - depending on what people send me.


I am looking for any suggested write ups for the separate classes. Don&#39;t send me ideas, please send me a class write up - you can take the format of the magician from the revised Chap doc (word version) to use as a template if you want. I would much prefer to engage the masses in this instead of writing what I think they should be. For one its more inclusive, for another it will keep me from becoming too attached to anything I write, for yet another reason - I&#39;m lazy (not really it just sounded like I should say that)."



What was meant was the same thing that I did with the blood score methods. 4 people submitted me variants. 2 of them were so similar I asked the &#39;authors&#39; to combine them to make a more cohesive presentation. I then edited them to make them easier to read. Gary was one of those who participated in this process along with Shade and Mark V (whose proposals were combined) and Mark_Aurel was the other one.

Now what does that sound like to you? Or are we still going down the assumption path? Sorry I&#39;m getting a little frustrated over this whole concept of revisiting everything at absolutely every step of the way. Nothing can possibly get accomplished that way.

To date I have recieved no proposals.

I received one e-mail and that pertained to how to expand the multiclass options to include the racial paragon classses and prestige classes (specifically dwarven defender for Moradin&#39;s paladins). My response to that was (and I was going to include it in the intro to the revised-revised version "paragon classes from UA already allow free multiclassing so they don&#39;t need to be addressed at all. Prestige classes are purely optional (see the DMG) and to include them specifically in this manner would make them &#39;required&#39; {bad idea as it limits DMs} also once one presitge class is included then all of them need to be addressed and that list is far too open ended for the BRCS - it is best left up to the individual DM&#39;s descretion for how he wants to handle it. If the door is opened for multiclassing then he/she will have examples of how to handle things. Prestige classes that could easily be included are Cavalier for Haelyn (from the CW), Hospitaler for Nesirie (from Defenders of the Faith), prestige classes from Book of Exalted Deeds and those in the upcoming Complete Divine. It just creates a monster for this ruleset.

[RaspK_FOG]

I am going to send over a write-up or two as soon as possible, but understand that I also have my own issues as well&#33; :D Sorry, could not resist saying that; it&#39;s true, however, so I really will send them in a couple of days and not now...

To be honest, I was SO sure that others had sent you a ton of material that I thought it wasn&#39;t a good idea to send you over anything&#33; Stupid me, huh?

[Mark_Aurel]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Apr 22 2004, 11:07 PM
I am going to send over a write-up or two as soon as possible, but understand that I also have my own issues as well&#33; :D Sorry, could not resist saying that; it&#39;s true, however, so I really will send them in a couple of days and not now...

To be honest, I was SO sure that others had sent you a ton of material that I thought it wasn&#39;t a good idea to send you over anything&#33; Stupid me, huh?
There&#39;s no reason to be assured of that at all. Most of the time, people simply don&#39;t bother. Complaining about what others do is much easier than actually making something of their own and putting it up. The likelihood is, only a very few individuals will submit anything at all.

Besides, given the size of the community, even if everyone submitted something, that still wouldn&#39;t exactly amount to an overwhelming amount of material.

[morgramen]

While I do not propose to argue one wayor another on this issue, I would like to suggest that perhaps people are trying to make the BRCS too many things at once. With each variant and each house rule that gets added in, the system becomes more complicated and confusing. A simple rule set that interacts well with the mechanics of 3.5, and which is *FUN* to play, is more useful than an encyclopedia of variant rules and complex formula.

I would point out, that Birthright.net is not just a forum. There are articles and variants a plenty here, and if folk disagree with one aspect (or more) of the core BRCS, then that&#39;s where the website comes into play. Send your variants, your prestige classes, and your own material to the web. In this way, the BRCS does not get clouded with endless variant rules (which sort of defeats the purpose of creating a "standard" anyway), and gives all a "common ground" from which to build.

I see alot of huff and puff over what&#39;s going into the BRCS, but I see very little in the way of submissions to BR.net itself. I think the resource that Arjan maintains is being grieveiously under utilized, and that teh BRCS is being overly complicated as a result. A wise man I know once told me: "Keep it simple stupid&#33;"

Just my 2 pence.

[geeman]

As someone who made a submission the last time the BRCS team asked for

submissions and someone who has participated in the discussion of the

issues, I feel obliged to make a couple of comments.



First, the discussion and submissions are not mutually exclusive or even

opposed efforts. If people submit things or not has nothing to do with the

amount of discussion in a thread. There`s simply no connection. In fact,

if people make submissions they are just as likely to be inspired or

influenced by the discussion in the thread as any other source, so the

complaint about the "complaining" (its not complaining, but I`ll get to

that in a minute) is nonsensical and essentially counterproductive. In my

case, the submission came about because the call for them occurred when I

was writing up the material for my own use anyway, so submitting it wasn`t

any particular effort. The discussion of the matter that occurred in

various threads was actually much more productive and influential on the

final product than the actual submission process. I would have posted that

material, however, whether it was going to be considered for the BRCS or not.



Second, most folks are here to discuss matters. Complaining that that

discussion is complaining really misses the point. Personally, I see the

BRCS update as being just another voice in the discussion and give it about

the same weight as some of the regular BR community participants. (To be

frank, some of those participants` opinions have more weight with me than

the BRCS.) I get the impression the updated material has that same role

for a lot of people in the BR community. In that context, the complaining

about complaining is really just a complaint about a discussion in which

the BRCS is one of the louder voices.



Is it possible to close a thread to later posts? If one wants to issue a

call for submissions but not have any discussion of the matter in that same

thread then that`s probably the way to go....



Gary

[Lysander]

Originally posted by geeman+Apr 23 2004, 02:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (geeman &#064; Apr 23 2004, 02:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Second, most folks are here to discuss matters. Complaining that that discussion is complaining really misses the point. Personally, I see the BRCS update as being just another voice in the discussion and give it about the same weight as some of the regular BR community participants. (To be frank, some of those participants` opinions have more weight with me than the BRCS.) I get the impression the updated material has that same role for a lot of people in the BR community. In that context, the complaining about complaining is really just a complaint about a discussion in which the BRCS is one of the louder voices.[/b]
Now, the discussion is exactly why I&#39;m here (usually reading on the email list, "on site" to post). As I&#39;ve said/alluded to other places, I consider myself the "Loyal Opposition" - not to the BRCS, the ideas, or to the discussion, but that I&#39;ll lay down my 2E books for whatever the current edition is when it has a "usable" Skills&Powers backing to it :D

I haven&#39;t made too many (well, ok, ANY) submissions, because I&#39;m not comfortable with 3.xE yet (I still think in 2e terms, even if my house-ruling makes it closer to 3e mechanics) and any BR game I DM for the foreseeable future would be on a 2e base. That doesn&#39;t mean the discussions aren&#39;t useful, or the polls, or anything else. If anything, I care moire about the ideas and motivations behind everything than the mechanics themselves. I have a hell of a lot of respect for the BRCS team for doing this they&#39;re not getting paid other than the compliments we give them, and have to face any abuse thrown at them as well.

Before I get off my soapbox :lol: , a couple of other thoughts that I&#39;m not sure WHERE to place here (and any mods feel free to move/copy this to the approptiate place - it&#39;s here since I&#39;m posting :) )

1) I ended up with some duplicates of printed Birthright materials I bought on eBay; rather than throw them back on eBay, if anyone&#39;s interested, message/email me, and we&#39;ll talk. (ok, business done :) )

2) Character mechanics. Am I alone in liking the 1/1st level character (2e multiclassing at 1st level)? I&#39;m trying to reconcile "early" (2e) multiclassing with "late" (3e) multiclassing (assuming humans can multiclass rather than dual) and don&#39;t particularly like the 3e approach (neuter or delay). Any thoughts?

(OK, those are better as separate posts elsewhere... but where is the rub. :unsure: Move as appropriate, if need be :) )

Lysander

OH&#33;
<!--QuoteBegin-geeman@Apr 20 2004, 12:00 PM
Did anyone ever really consider it a proud tradition?[/quote]
Uh, yea... couldn&#39;t you tell? :lol:

[irdeggman]

Lysander,
Thanks for the insight on where you are coming from. The Royal Library Forum is the place for general BR issues. Pretty much anything having to do with 2nd ed specific and not converting to 3/3.5 is best served there. If you are posting and not using mailserv replies it is fairly easy to select which forum to post to, it is much harder when using the mailserv. There are many (I don&#39;t know how many but I know there are some) that like you don&#39;t really want to convert to 3/3.5 ed. Many are driven by the investment they put into 2nd ed material (quite substantial&#036;&#036;&#036;).

When WotC put out the SRD it basically gave people a "free" 3.5 material source they could use. This freed up a lot of people to look it over and not have to pay through the nose to get new material. There should be a link to the SRD on the pinned FAQ on the Royal Library Forum.

__________________________________________________ _______________

This forum is supposed to be dedicated to the BRCS not to general discussions (comment not addressed to you specifically Lysander).

So while some think it is best served by discussions and not action, I think they need to spend their time on the Royal Library since that is the forum specific for those sort of things. This forum was for the BRCS itself.

For a brief history lesson to those who are more recent members to the boards/maillist (and a refresher to the oldies): When 3rd ed came out there was a tremendous amount of discussion on how BR should be converted to 3rd ed. Many people worked up their own conversions and posted them on the downloads site, most are still there. After about 2 years of "discussions" someone got the idea (actually there were at 2 other attempts not associated with Birthright.net but they failed miserably) to actually start up a "team" composed of people who had posted conversions or had substantially contributed to the discussions dedicated to creating what became the BRCS. This &#39;team&#39; added and lost members, but spent the better part of 18 months putting together the BRCS-playtest. Feb &#39;03 it was &#39;released&#39; for playtest and discussion. After a year of discussions (and the release of 3.5) things have started progressing towards completion. There were many polls and discussions on Chapt 2 before it was revised and finally "sanctioned" recently.

Now several people think that it is time to open up things for general discussion again without committing to action. Well that is fine for a Royal Library type of discussion. But it is now time to proceed. That is why I&#39;ve encouraged and am pretty much insisting that people make submittals instead of just comments along the line of "I don&#39;t like this make it something different and let me look at what you come up with". I&#39;ve dealt too much with the "bring me another rock" syndrome at work and know that it doesn&#39;t lead to getting anything accomplished.

This does not mean that there isn&#39;t room for simple comments, an example of this is the bring back the +1 saving throw modifiers for the human subraces. This is a pretty specific comment that can be discussed (voted on) and implemented. The paladin issue is an example of one that can&#39;t be handled that easily. There is no such thing as a simple comment on how to rewrite a class.

Bottom line is that discussion over BR and 3rd ed has been going on for over 4 years so either we commit to trying to get something done or we resolve ourselves to not bothering. I am committed to getting something done. So either you (in general) are committed or not. :unsure:

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Apr 24 2004, 12:11 AM
This forum is supposed to be dedicated to the BRCS not to general discussions (comment not addressed to you specifically Lysander).

So while some think it is best served by discussions and not action, I think they need to spend their time on the Royal Library since that is the forum specific for those sort of things.* This forum was for the BRCS itself.

For a brief history lesson to those who are more recent members to the boards/maillist (and a refresher to the oldies):* When 3rd ed came out there was a tremendous amount of discussion on how BR should be converted to 3rd ed.* Many people worked up their own conversions and posted them on the downloads site, most are still there. After about 2 years of "discussions" someone got the idea (actually there were at 2 other attempts not associated with Birthright.net but they failed miserably) to actually start up a "team" composed of people who had posted conversions or had substantially contributed to the discussions dedicated to creating what became the BRCS.* This &#39;team&#39; added and lost members, but spent the better part of 18 months putting together the BRCS-playtest.* Feb &#39;03 it was &#39;released&#39; for playtest and discussion. After a year of discussions (and the release of 3.5) things have started progressing towards completion. There were many polls and discussions on Chapt 2 before it was revised and finally "sanctioned" recently.

Now several people think that it is time to open up things for general discussion again without committing to action.* Well that is fine for a Royal Library type of discussion.* But it is now time to proceed.* That is why I&#39;ve encouraged and am pretty much insisting that people make submittals instead of just comments along the line of "I don&#39;t like this make it something different and let me look at what you come up with".* I&#39;ve dealt too much with the "bring me another rock" syndrome at work and know that it doesn&#39;t lead to getting anything accomplished.

This does not mean that there isn&#39;t room for simple comments, an example of this is the bring back the +1 saving throw modifiers for the human subraces.* This is a pretty specific comment that can be discussed (voted on) and implemented.* The paladin issue is an example of one that can&#39;t be handled that easily.* There is no such thing as a simple comment on how to rewrite a class.

Bottom line is that discussion over BR and 3rd ed has been going on for over 4 years so either we commit to trying to get something done or we resolve ourselves to not bothering.* I am committed to getting something done.* So either you (in general) are committed or not. :unsure:
This is what I was going to say... "The early bird catches the worm..."

Also, allow me to apologise for being part of this... A simple (if a bit inconvinient for some of us) solution would be to not use the mailing system but the site in order to better assess how we should reply.

Furthermore, I would like to ask you for the paladin write-ups for a week at most... It seems it will take me some more time than I thought (stuff came up; sorry for that). Also, remember that what I will send you might need a little balancing or what-not, for which I will have to ask you that you mail me back, OK? Thanks for being patient with me and my incompetence.


As for the dwarven paladin-like prestige class mentioned above, I will post my write-up at the Royal Library (you can find similar posts by other members there as well; I had posted a magic item there, and will post more in the future).

[irdeggman]

RASP_Fog,

Since you asked so nicely ;) and are committed to doing something Ihave no problem with waiting for your submittals. Especially since I haven&#39;t put together everything as a default for lack of submittals (call me a hopeless optimist but I still think some people will send in stuff, other than you). I expect to do some tweaking for balance and what not. Mostly I expect to send back comments on what doesn&#39;t look balanced to give the &#39;author&#39; a chance to play with their vision first.

[RaspK_FOG]

Danke schön&#33; Merci beaucoup&#33; Thank you very much&#33; Χίλια ευχαριστώ&#33;

(I am no kidding you...)

[Athos69]

Duane:

Since my email to you can&#39;t seem to get through the servers...

You may want to add to the Dwarven section that due to racial familiarity with the Dwarven Waraxe, it counts as a Martial Weapon to them for 1-handed use.

Also, Is the Dwarven Urgosh being included in this setting, and if so, we&#39;ll need a similar statement in the racial characteristics...

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Athos69@Apr 24 2004, 09:20 AM
Duane:

Since my email to you can&#39;t seem to get through the servers...

You may want to add to the Dwarven section that due to racial familiarity with the Dwarven Waraxe, it counts as a Martial Weapon to them for 1-handed use.

Also, Is the Dwarven Urgosh being included in this setting, and if so, we&#39;ll need a similar statement in the racial characteristics...
This isn&#39;t something that needs an e-mail since it is pretty specific (and easy?) to handle.

The weapon familiarity was non-intentionally left out in the dwarf write ups. As far as including the Dwarven Urgosh, I would look more along the lines of is there a reason not to include it? It didn&#39;t exist in 2nd ed and was basically introduced in 3/3.5. IMO I can&#39;t see any logical reason not to include it in the BRCS. But maybe others have an opinion.

[RaspK_FOG]

I have another idea:

Complete Warrior had a small allowance for characters to choose for their weapon familiarity as soon as they were proficient with a martial weapon (either through Martial Weapon Proficiency or through a weapon proficiency granted by a class, most particularly Martial Weapon Proficiency (all), which is granted by all warrior character classes and some prestige classes) from amongst a list of such weapons; thematically, I would add a third weapon to their listed choice, the maul (one-handed exotic weapon, can be wielded two-handedly as a martial weapon by a medium character, weighs 20 pounds, 1d10 bludgeoning damage, 20/×3), so that they could choose 2 out of 3, as per the book.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Apr 25 2004, 05:43 PM
I have another idea:

Complete Warrior had a small allowance for characters to choose for their weapon familiarity as soon as they were proficient with a martial weapon (either through Martial Weapon Proficiency or through a weapon proficiency granted by a class, most particularly Martial Weapon Proficiency (all), which is granted by all warrior character classes and some prestige classes) from amongst a list of such weapons; thematically, I would add a third weapon to their listed choice, the maul (one-handed exotic weapon, can be wielded two-handedly as a martial weapon by a medium character, weighs 20 pounds, 1d10 bludgeoning damage, 20/×3), so that they could choose 2 out of 3, as per the book.
IMO that should be kept to a local house-rules type of thing. Adding in too many variants from the WotC books that specify them makes the BRCS just another book of variants. It is better to not add too many of them, especially when they can be added via DM action. Also CW is not OGC so we can&#39;t just copy it in we&#39;d have to write up something else similar but not exact - gets messy after a while if you know what I mean.

Weapon familiarity was something that WotC/TSR introduced in Player&#39;s Option: Combat and Tactics and just finally got around to capturing again (in CW). I personnaly like the weapon familiarity rules, but don&#39;t think they should be added to the BRCS just because I like them.

[RaspK_FOG]

Understood&#33; ;)